Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Scottish Parliament Building

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 22:34, 10 January 2007.

[edit] Scottish Parliament Building

Self nomination, well cited article, combining all the different elements of design, project history and controversy.Globaltraveller 14:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Support Well-written, well-sourced, excellent pictures (all with proper rationales for fair/free use), meets MoS guidelines... this is a flat-out great article. -- Kicking222 19:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Wow. Rebecca 00:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Great article.--Zleitzen 00:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Please clean up your references, and I will have another look - here are some random samples from refs I clicked on:
    • (This reference has an incorrect article title, and an incorrect publication date.) "Timeline:Holyrood", BBC Scotland News, BBC, 2004-09-13. Retrieved on 2006-10-27. 
    • (These three references don't include the publication date given in the ref) ^ Speech by HM The Queen on the opening of the New Scottish Parliament building: - "Certainly this new parliament building has had a difficult and controversial birth.". Royal.gov.uk. Retrieved on 2006-10-30. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n House of Commons Research Paper - Building the Scottish Parliament, The Holyrood Project. House of Commons Library. Retrieved on 2006-10-29. ^ Corporate Body issues February Report to Finance Committee. Scottish Parliament. Retrieved on 2006-10-30.
    • (Another news source without a publication date). Scottish Parliament to be built at Holyrood. Scottish Office. Retrieved on 2006-12-15.
  • Pls doublecheck all refs, and I'll continue - I don't usually read an article until I know it meets WP:V. Sandy (Talk) 03:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Skipping down in the article, I find more problems:
  • Switching to object - sloppy referencing in an FAC bothers me - there is no excuse for this many errors on a random check, and I don't want to check every source. WP:V is policy. Sandy (Talk) 03:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment With some trepidation, I'd say that the references are now fully checked, "cleaned up" and any problems ironed out. I have provided dates, where possible, but please bear in mind this is not possible for every single reference I've provided. Thanks Globaltraveller 10:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Much better - striking my object. However, pls add the author on all of the hollyroodinquiry.com refs - I don't know how to properly deal with his titles. I do wish other reviewers would check refs more often - it seems that everything I looked at yesterday had faulty refs. Sandy (Talk) 18:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • OK I have done that. The author of the report was the individual who chaired the inquiry, so this is who I have included as the author in the references. I hope that is satisfactory. The Holyrood Inquiry/Fraser Inquiry are the same thing (and I had swapped between the terms, in the references) but I've now standardised this. The report was published on Sept 15, 2004, and that is the date I've used throughout. Thanks Globaltraveller 19:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Nice referencing now - I'll try to read the article when I get a larger block of free time. Sandy (Talk) 19:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Wonderful and well sourced article. —dima/s-ko/ 20:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: the order of the information in the lead section could be more logical: Why not mention when the building was constructed before the date the first debate was held in it? Wouldn't "The building was designed by the Catalan (why not simply Spanish?) architect Enric Miralles, who died during the course of its construction" be a better way to formulate the third sentence, since who designed the building is certainly more important than when that person died? All in all I think some things should be moved around in the lead section.--Carabinieri 01:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • You make a fair point about including when the building was constructed, so I've mentioned when construction commenced in the text juxtaposed with when members held their first debate there - so clearly it was constructed between 1999 and 2004. On your other point about mentioning the death of the designer (architect), unless I am missing something, the third sentence makes it abundantly clear that Miralles designed the building BEFORE it is stated (at the end of the sentence) that he died "during the course of its construction". The only difference is, the sentence already in the article makes the prose a bit more varied (ie instead of starting each sentence with "The" all the time). Nevertheless, if it really does detract from the article I certainly would be happy to change it to something more standard. Thanks Globaltraveller 05:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The way the sentence is right now, it sounds like the fact that the architect died is much more important than the fact that he was the one who designed the building to me, but then again that might just be me...--Carabinieri 13:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—1a. Not a professional job yet.
    • Can you audit the use of commas throughout? "Enric Miralles, the Catalan architect who designed the building died during the course of its construction." You need a second comma at the end of the nested phrase.
    • "A public inquiry into the handling of the construction, chaired by the former Lord Advocate, Peter Fraser, reported in September 2004, and criticised the management of the whole project from the realisation of cost increases down to the way major design changes were implemented.[9]" "Reported in September 2004" is just a little awkward in that position, and the agency of "reported" is ambiguous. Insert "in which" after "way".
    • "Having been scheduled for opening in 2001,[7] when it finally opened,"—Then we find in the next clause that it didn't open in 2001. Causes a "jerk".
    • Then we have "acres" without metric equivalent.

Please find someone fresh to go through the whole text. Tony 13:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've amended the specific areas you've raised. You'll also see that a "fresh pair of eyes" went through the article circa 2 days ago as a copyedit, and I have done several myself. I will nevertheless try and audit any commas that are out of place. Globaltraveller 18:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Support. I suggest a few tweaks.

Project History: Following the "Yes" vote on establishing a Scottish Parliament after a referendum in 1997, the Scottish Office,.. Do you mean ‘in a referendum’ or was the ‘Aye’ vote one in Westminster?
I am afraid I have to agree with Margo and I think a sentence or two about the reasons why it is not universally popular would be useful.
There is a space missing after citation 34 and before ‘The Roof’
You refer to the ‘pre-1707 parliament building’ but don't say anywhere why there wasn’t one in the interim c. 300 years. This could do with a sentence and might even be worth adding to the lead.
Other buildings: ‘and 18m of the building suspended’. I loathe the endless mix of imperial and metric but feel obliged to point out the absence.
‘first, First Minister of Scotland’ is a bit awkward - might ‘founding First’ be better?
‘The project was also complicated by the death, in July 2000, of Miralles and of Dewar the following October, and existence of a multi-headed client’. I don’t have a degree in comma usage, but perhaps ‘The project was also complicated by the death in July 2000 of Miralles, of Dewar the following October, and the existence of a multi-headed client’. Happy Hogmanay! Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Thankyou very much for going through the whole article and giving these suggestions. I've addressed the minor points (1, 3, 5, 6 and 7). I don't have time to address the bigger points (2 and 4) just at the moment, but when I get time soon, I'll definitely act upon them and see what can be done. Globaltraveller 20:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I've added a part on the Project history section detailing the Parliament of Scotland and I have added a sentence on the criticism of the building. Again, please tweak away at the article to improve it as you see fit. Thanks Globaltraveller 19:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Support but (now dealt with -see below) you should at least mention the widely-held, though unprovable (currently anyway), view that Dewar knew perfectly well the early estimates were nonsense, but was determined to press ahead anyway. Johnbod 23:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, I'm really not sure. Would including that not stray deep into the territory of WP:V and WP:POV - especially if there are no sources proving that? Globaltraveller 09:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
No, you would include that the view is widely-held, which is fairly easily verifiable from sources you have to hand (I would imagine), & not that it is true, which of course won't be verifiable. Obviously needs to be carefully worded, but it is an essential part of the jigsaw. Johnbod 13:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, I have included a section on this - [1], with sources. Please feel free to edit it, if you don't think it says what it should. Thanks again Globaltraveller 19:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
That's fine, thanks. I've amended my first comment (can't remember how to strike-through) Johnbod 12:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Reluctant objection 1b. It's a great article, but to deal with one of the most architecturally significant and controversial buildings of recent years without citing the leading arch. critic Charles Jencks and his writings on the building, leaves us open to serious accusations of low acadamic standards. As a minimum we need to get citations in from "Architecture Today no.154 January 2005/ p.32-44" [2] and maybe some of [3]. I'm also a little concerned about the referencing - yes there's a lot of it, 100+ inline citations etc. but almost all the inline citations reference websites - there's plenty of published material on this building now and I thought we were supposed to favour that over websites for referencing. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to do so, but as I said at Peer Review I am rather reluctant to include opinions from architectural critics. Bear in mind the article is becoming extremely long. With regards to your objection please feel free to dig out the relevant quotes, and add them if you think it would help. I am not sure it will, sorry. I am afraid, I don't think I can do anything to address your objection. Globaltraveller 15:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The article will then remain deficient in it's treatment of the buildings architecture and neglects a major facet of it's subject, Jencks isn't any old architecture critic, along with Banham, Venturi, Frampton etc he's one of the big global writers and has written quite a bit on this building - That's a shame - I'll see if I can find the article.........--Mcginnly | Natter 16:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
He may well be, but he is just a critic - and that in no way detracts from the facts of the building - at least, I don't think so (and that is what I take from you assertion that it "neglects a major facet of it's subject"). Unfortunately I am not anywhere I can find such print references, at the current time, thus, personally I am powerless to address your objection, even though I am not sure about its merit. But if you can find it, that would be good. But again, bear in mind this article is already extremely long, any additions would have to be limited or measured, otherwise the article will go awry in another area. Globaltraveller 16:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid the case for inclusion is pretty strong, Miralles's last building, the first parliament to be built in the UK since the palace of westminster, the building, like perhaps the Fagus Factory or Notre Dame du Haut has a place in the narrative thread of architectural discourse, It is a major attempt to reconcile a modern building with it's landscape, people and culture in a way that picks it's way between modernism, postmodernism, deconstructivism, critical regionalism and other schools of thought of our time. I'll see if I've got a copy of the article at home, but I'm pretty sure there's a book on the subject by Jencks too. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
And here's some evidence - Jencks quoted from the Sunday Herald describing the building as "a tour de force of arts and crafts and quality without parallel in the last 100 years of British architecture" and "It is an arts and crafts building, designed with high-tech flair. You really have to go back to the Houses of Parliament in London to get interior design of such a high creative level - in fact, it is more creative" Holyrood is 'without parallel' in 100 years of architecture Leading --Mcginnly | Natter 16:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Well I've found the AR review anyway [4]. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Brilliant, I've found the AT review [5] --Mcginnly | Natter 16:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, now what? I see from glancing at the AR review, most of its subject matter is already in this article. Globaltraveller 17:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll review all this later but off the top of my head 1. Jencks puts forwards the architectural case for the buildings greatness in an attempt to dampen criticism of the overspend by comparison to other parliaments 2. The AR discusses the 'heady architectural' cocktail approach to dealing with the complexities of the site and programme. 3. Jencks deals with the unusually 'pistol' forms on the facade. --Mcginnly | Natter 17:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll sort a floor plan out too. --Mcginnly | Natter 17:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Brilliant, that would be excellent, thanks. I will try an incorporate the AR review into the text references. A lot of it is already there. Globaltraveller 17:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong support - now covers all aspects of this complicated building. I should declare my hand in the editing though and it needs fresh eyes for a read through again. --Mcginnly | Natter 01:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.